| |
|
Obviously: A ban on fox-hunting forced into law by MPs after peers defied the House of Commons has received a mixed response.
The opponents of the ban (let's not call them 'pro-Hunt'; there are people in there who loathe hunting but dislike the implications of banning it even more) are challenging the legitimacy of the Parliament Act, which is being used to push the ban into law despite the opposition of the House of Lords.
Some views:
Burns Inquiry: This is a complex issue that is full of paradoxes [...]
[..support for hunting] tends to be based not so much on importance to the individual - although this was true for hunt participants and some farmers - but a belief that hunting had greater significance for the community as a whole and for others living there; that hunt-based social activities play a significant part in the social life of these communities, but are not as significant as those of the local pub or church; that support for hunting, and a belief in its importance to individuals and to the local community, was particularly strong in the Devon and Somerset study area; and that a significant minority who were opposed to hunting would welcome its abolition. [...]
In lowland areas hunting by the registered packs makes only a minor contribution to the management of the fox population, and terrierwork, especially by gamekeepers, may be more important. In these areas, in the event of a ban, other means of control have the potential to replace the hunts' role in culling foxes. (Paragraph 5.42)
In upland areas, where the fox population causes more damage to sheep-rearing and game management interests, and where there is a greater perceived need for control, fewer alternatives are available to the use of dogs, either to flush out to guns or for digging-out. (Paragraph 5.43)
Lord Bramall: Nor can the human rights argument and the "freedom to do what the individual thinks is reasonable" be entirely justified on historical grounds. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, raised that issue in an earlier debate. If that were so, those who might want to pursue other forms of behaviour which have, over the years, been banned on the grounds that they constitute unacceptable conduct in an otherwise civilised society could argue the same way [...]
the fact that in a well-organised hunt there is not, as some critics would say, intentional, gratuitous cruelty of inflicting pain of a voyeuristic nature, which is more than can be said of some activities which go on in public.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is deeply necessary not to confuse what we may disapprove of with what must be criminalised.
IFAW:
In a MORI poll conducted in the UK in November 2003, 76% of people said they wanted hunting with dogs to be banned (82% said deer hunting should be illegal, 77% said hare hunting and coursing should be illegal, and 69% thought fox hunting should be illegal. 76% is the average of these three figures.)
John Rolls, RSPCA: This new legislation reflects modern society's abhorrence of cruelty to wild animals which has, for too long, been veiled in the bloody cloak of tradition and prejudice. To willingly inflict unnecessary suffering on another sentient being is intolerable, and for this reason the RSPCA heralds this ban on hunting with dogs as marking a watershed in the development of a more civilised society for people and animals.
So: where are you on all this, what haven't I mentioned which I should have, where are the priorities? |
|
|
